Skip to main content

About your Search

20130204
20130212
Search Results 0 to 29 of about 30 (some duplicates have been removed)
to face and i think much more important is the very large, long run deficit that a thing all of us want our policymakers to come together and address how we're going to do with it. i think that's unfortunate will have to be front and center in the next year coming up with that. i sure hope it is. >> let's see, i think first thing just to mind ourselves out is that the impact of it president on the short-term macro economy is almost always exaggerated. presidents can have a big impact on the economy in the medium term and long run, largely -- and while the fed has cut aid to help they can should have a much bigger short-term effect, we immediately looked to the white house and said what are you going to be about the economy right now? dr. romer and i would have to go on tv and there is points and talk about the job supports and what would happen over the course of the next month and the thing that is so frustrating note in fact not much that you were doing action has a direct result what will happen over the course of the next month. i think it is interesting how the debate has shifted.
administration did raise the deficit, bigger deficits are bad but there was a rationale for a stimulus package. but the biggest message of the book to me as the author is a paradox of the private markets ran amok but pretty effectively to put things back on track but at the end of the day you witnessed a sharp backlash you call it a big government americans are against it. but there was a reason for the government intervention the likes we have not seen since the 1930's and it would have been a preview. nonetheless you did have a backlash against the government in general, president obama, it would have been against him him, against a democratic party more generally, the federal reserve, keynesian economics which i am perfect -- prepared to defend. but what both ended the of backlash period but my favorite cartoon from the crisis appears in "the new yorker" march 2009 and it shows a page set in in medieval castle courtyard and the king said is on the chopping block. wait stop government is the solution. not the problem. [laughter] that lasted about two or three months and then people started t
stood here as your new governor wisconsin was facing a $3.6 billion budget deficit. property taxes had gone up 27% over the previous decade, increasing every year and the unemployment rate was 7.8%. today wisconsin has a $34 million surplus. property taxes on median value home went down each. last two years the unemployment rate, well, it is down to 6.7%. [applause] we're turning things around. we're heading in the right direction. we're moving wisconsin forward. and unlike other states we avoided significant tax increases, massive layoffs and cuts in programs like medicaid. instead we put in place long-term structural reforms that helped us balance state and local government budgets for years to come. what we did was think more about the next generation than we did about the next election and it worked. but the first time in our state's history we set machine any aside in two consecutive years for the rainy day fund. our bond rating is solid and our pension system is the only one in the country that is fully funded. [applause] we made tough but prudent decisions to get our fiscal hous
's pockets but i'm sure it appears and power deficits all over the world. and i don't want to bring up the sisterhood of suffering in this, but certainly stands united and salvation women face a dual burden and the fact they work outside the home, but their work is not considered a contribution to the mainstream economy. certainly pakistan work on the long. so that is why we are putting borel and herbal women at the bottom of the pier made at our development strategies. >> thank you for coming. i want to ask you about the drugs. so pakistan's position is international law under those guidelines a lot to ask, why did she choose them? has pakistan shot drums and if not, the reason i assess this because there's bob pakistan publicly -- >> that may address this is most spokesperson do. they speak to what began in terms of the question and you do ask why -- you ask a question, which is a required complicity in this? let me assure you since we've been in government, there's no question of wink and nod. this is a parliamentary breadline that all government institutions have internalized this
, investment in this term, and we all recognize the deficit is an issue but it is an issue over a long term, and the balancing act by repealing sequestration creates for us in this country an opportunity to continue to recover and stabilize our economy, invest in thing wes need for the future, and put on the table revenue that is not there that needs to be part of the revenue generation we need in order to deal with the deficit issues of this country and the investment needed for recovery. thank you very much. >> thank you. i'm so happy to be here with the progressive caucus, talking bat sensible alternative. here are the facts. full implementation of the sequestration would threaten 2.4 million jobs. both in the public and the private sector. the congressional budget office has said that sequestration, if allowed to take effect, would reduce economic growth by 1.25% this year. so, there's no doubt that the sequestration would harm the economy. we need to make sure a sequestration is going to be replaced, it isn't replaced with something even worse. the president has already signed into law
will be gradual. and on the downside we have thrown a lot of roadblocks in its path. we have a debt and deficit situation which in the long term are unsustainable, and we're doing absolutely nothing to correct that. nothing. i know cbo's forecast was that we would see modest improvement in the jet crashing into debt-to-gdp ratio the next two years but i don't believe the. i don't like their forecast. i do with 4% growth is going to venture lies with the 0% increase in the interest rate. just don't see it happening. if you get when you're going to get the other one taking up and that will be very, very difficult to maintain a stable or declining debt-to-gdp ratio. but even cbo has a debt-to-gdp ratio picking up at the end of the 10 year horizon. so we have to stabilize the debt. we haven't fixed the debt. and, in fact, we spread the crisis out so that we really won't go a month without one. we have the fiscal cliff at the end of the year. nothing was done in the later part of the year. and then in the 11th hour, actually it wasn't the 11th hour. it was about the 15th hour, two and half hours aft
sequestration and find a balanced approach to deficit reduction that does not include further cuts to discretionary programs. both defense and non-defense programs are equally critical to economic growth and the safety and security of our nation. these discretionary programs are not the reason for our growing debt and yet so far they have been the only place lawmakers have been willing to cut by $1.5 trillion today. non-defense programs alone have been cut a $900 billion bringing spending on these programs to levels not seen since eisenhower was president. as we saw from the white house memo on friday and as you will hear from our panel today, cuts to discretionary programs alone not only won't balance the budget, they will cripple our ability to grow our economy and provide an environment where all americans have the opportunity to lead healthy, safe and productive lives. that is what really brings us together here today because sequestration is about more than numbers on a ledger. there are real people behind these numbers and their lives and livelihoods are on the line. these cu
, the proposals that have been submitted to us will lead to a deficit, college. already in 2012, the budget has a deficit of 16 billion euros. we have to sacrifice and penalize thousands of students. what's the meaning of this? what's the point of this that members states, heads of state are just going to run a deficit? we are not going to go along with his, mr. president. there are rules and we will make sure they are respected, starting with article iii 10 which calls for a balanced budget. do i really have to remind you that this deficit system led to member states to the situation which we find ourselves today? it's a standing that member states are opposing something on the one hand, they are asking to strengthen our economic governance with a sixpack and with a sixpack and a two pack, and they're asking us to stop running deficits. but they want us to learn these bad habits all over again. we've got 960 billion commitments, and the same amount of payment. any direction of a company will tell you that's economic suicide, and it is too simple, mr. president, and you shouldn't hide behind da
absolutely no suggestion for how to get on top of welfare, get our deficit down, get our economy moving, or frankly do anything else. >> ed miliband. >> so today we discover he hasn't even got a clue about his own policy that he is introduced here and his answers today remind us what his party and the country are saying about him. the only people are a small group of rich and powerful people. that's what he is come up a policy that is unworkable and unfair. is a prime minister who is weak, incompetent, and totally out of touch. >> totally pathetic rubbish that we get used to every wednesday. and on the issue, on the issue of who listens to do, i have a very clear idea of who he listens to. because we heard in the al as he lecture by le lynn mccluskey. and len mccluskey said this. he says i met ed miliband and he asked me this question that this is the question he asked him. lynn, if you had three wishes, three things you would like us to do, if we got back into power, what would you like them to be? and len mccluskey's answer, trade union, freedom, trade union, freedom, trade union, fre
in washington. >> so it is almost a false argument to say we have a spending problem. we have a budget deficit problem that we have to address. right now we have low interest on the national debt, and a good time for us the to act to lower that deficit. we think the deficit and the national debt are at immoral levels. we think they must be reduced. we're sick and tired of paying interest on the national debt, and that's 15%. that's a large percentage of the budget. it's lower now because of the lower interest rate. >> host: so on this debate, spending cuts versus tax increases, here's what the washington times writes in their editorial: as mr. thornton points out, the rel break from fiscal prudent happens inside 1970s between 1970 and 2007. spending jumped to an average of close to 21% of gdp while revenues rose to around 18% of gdp. >> host: social security, medicare and medicaid are the biggest culprits in the spending spike. these entitlements were responsible for about 5% of federal be spend anything 1950, a figure that jumped to almost 16% in 2010. >> host: that's the washington times edi
innovation and all that and then we looking global markets that began to cut the trade deficit. >> okay, next squishing. anybody else have one? okay, create, over here. >> hi, i'm sure chris, former hill staffer. we are earlier atlantic is involved in the economic issues because they're important to national security issues and we heard in this discussion how people produce valuable things for themselves at home and in the internet age we've had an instance where hundreds of millions of people have gained access to more information than we've ever had before creating tremendous value for all of them and a lot of it is missed in economic measurements in gdp. so before going to be taking some of the panelists have said, a lot of value from factories into our home, they're going to be missed by traditional economic measurements. are we going to reconcile that and how are we going to do with? [inaudible] >> i think there's no question they're abruptly important measurement issues. if you have an economy that is still solely on material objects, it's a lot easier to count things to say, do they ma
to reduce our deficit, what kind of tax plans we're going to have, how we are going to make sure that every child is getting a great education, the doctor, it is very encouraging to me that you turned out so well by your mom not letting you watch tv. i'm going to tell my daughters that. [laughter] in the midst of all these debates, we must keep that same humility that dr. king and lincoln them washington and all our great leaders understood is at the core of true leadership. in a democracy is as big and as diverse as ours, we will encounter every opinion. and our task as citizens, whether we are leaders in government or business, or spreading the word, to spend our days with open hearts and open minds, to seek out the truth that exists in an opposing view, and to find the common ground that allows for us as a nation, as a people, to take real and meaningful action. and we have to do that humbly, for no one can know the full and encompassing mind of god. and we have to do it everyday, not just at the prayer breakfast. i have to say, this is now our fifth prayer breakfast, and it is always ju
of a man, but he actually tripled the deficit and debt and expanded the size of government to or proportions, the same as george bush and republicans always blamed democrats, even though clinton and obama both have lower the deficit if you look at the treasury's website for every fiscal year. every single republican from nixon to george bush as we expanded the deficit greatly. the congress didn't change. it is just the president, but it's always blamed on congress. whenever credit given, they want all the credit, none of the responsibility. republicans will say divisive things. zero, this birth certificate or you're not american enough for denver. >> guest: three things. as a general matter, members of those party blame the other party. president obama more than any in my lifetime has landed the republican party and generally been whining or can need more excuses than any president. he seemed as if he couldn't give a speech for a while without claiming everything, including athletes foot on george w. bush. that gets tiresome after a while. but the criteria is claiming the o
two years ago the largest structural deficit in our budget was faced by new mexicans in the history of new mexico. skeptics said we could not balance the budget without east a massive -- without either a massive tax increase or making deep cuts to classroom spending and to medicaid. but we came together in a bipartisan manner, and together we proved the skeptics wrong. [applause] for two years in a row, we compromised and passed good, balanced budgets. we protected critical priorities like classroom spending and basic health care for the most vulnerable. we protected childcare for working moms, school clothes for kids in need. and let's remember we accomplished all of this without raising taxes. [applause] not only did we eliminate the deficit, we created a surplus. this wasn't a republican accomplishment or a democratic accomplishment. it was an accomplishment we achieved together. the next year we used those surplus tax dollars wisely. we put some in our state savings account, increasing our reserve levels. we used some to increase funding for education, targeting reading and earl
and deficit issues that face our kids and grandkids. a lot of lip service is being paid. i'm concerned we're talking about just us. what middle-class life will they have unless we stepup and do the right things. and it to me it is very -- actually, i actually campaigned on a suicide mission to reform medicare and the tax reform. every town hall camaraderie, chamber meeting, senior meetings i would talk about those two things in those two things only, guaranteed political suicide. i'm still here. we can do this. [applause] >> congressman. >> in answer to that question about what it will take to get washington to deal with the fiscal challenge facing this country, i was in a meeting in december of 2011 at the home of senator mark warner, a democrat, and alan greenspan was there and he said something that really struck me very hard. he said to you know, reuter you guys in congress going to do something big on this fiscal challenge? are you going to do it before or after the bond market crash is? and it will crash. he is not known for hyperbole, and it struck me that the former chair of the f
we need higher fuels tax and we can use that to reduce the deficit or for something else. the fuels tax was designed or intended whether it's done so successfully or not. was intended to pay for infrastructure. that's what we're talking about. >> absolutely. yeah. we're not happy about that. >> what are you hoping for next week? >> for some reason, i haven't been consulted on that. [laughter] the president in the campaign said he was for an all of the above energy policy. andlet have announcements that support that. let's move forward with the big decisions like keystone x l and leasing decision, five-year plan and the a things you need to do in order to accomplish the above policy. i would say that we also i would like to see stop the discussion about taxing the industry and trying to characterize the subsidizes, which is simply not true. and i'd like to see some more opportunities in terms where can with open up areas that are off limits right now. all of the combined with generate an enormous amount of opportunity for the economy when we need it. >> [inaudible] >> i'll just menti
. grappling with a record debt and deficits, threat of global warming, threat of global poverty, pandemics, of national security challenges like continuing war on terrorism, instability of iran and north korea, rising powers, turmoil across the middle east, turmoil in north africa, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the growing threat of cyber attacks. how we confront these problems, how we deal with these challenges will in many ways determine the future course of america. it will determine whether the united states will be a leader in the 21st century, or whether we will be just another failed empire in history. to succeed, we will depend on the resilience of our economy, the strength of our diplomatic and military institutions, and above all, the effectiveness of our political system. that underpins in many ways everything we do as a country. and that brings me to what i see as perhaps the most urgent task, facing this nation and facing all of us. and that is overcoming the partisan dysfunction in congress that poses a threat to our quality of life, to our national se
into deficit spending and debt, should we not at least apply some standards and some principles in terms of where and how we allocate funds that are sent to us by the taxpayer? i've asked each agency to do that. we haven't received any reports back. all we hear is from a number of voices around town, oh, no, we can't touch any of this. every dime that we spend is absolutely necessary. well, i think what senator coburn has done and begun to do and what i hope to do and also work with him and others is to identify some of those areas and literally ask the question to my colleagues and to the american people, do you think this is really an essential function of the federal government? is this something that maybe we would like to do but don't have the money to do or is this something that frankly has just not lived up to its promise, is wasting money, or is this something that never should have been passed in the first place? if we don't apply those principles to our future spending, we're going to continue down this road. now, we all know that the big three, social security, medicare and m
. you've got to address the larger deficit issue, and to address the larger deficit issue -- and my own experience. i've participated in every budget summit we have indiana past -- we have had in past years. you have to develop a balanced package. that's the nature of dealing with the size deficits you've got. and my preference, frankly, is that the congress would do the big deal, get it done, get this behind us, detrigger sequester, stop this constant uncertainty. this month-to-month situation where we don't know what the hell we're going to get. that should end. in the absence of that deal, obviously i'll support whatever package you can put together to try to detrigger sequester. whatever you can do to make sure this doesn't happen. i mean, i cannot imagine that people would stand by and deliberately hurt this country in terms of our national defense by letting this take place. >> i'll only add briefly that most of the things we're doing are reversible. that is our goal, they would be reversible, but even if you reverse them it will take some time -- and i can't predict that yet -- w
have a deficit. here's a project that gets substantial tax revenue without raising taxes through economic activity, through job creation. further and perhaps most importantly, it will help put our country within striking range of a long-sought goal -- true energy security. for the first time in generations, the united states with its friend and ally canada will have the capacity to produce more energy than we use, reducing or eliminating our reliance on the middle east and other volatile parts of the world. the argument has been advanced that the oil sands will increase carbon emissions and that failing to build the keystone x.l. will somehow reduce emissions. but let's look at that claim. that's the other piece. let's look at the environmental aspects of this project. today, more than 80% of all new recovery in the oil sands is being accomplished in situ, a technology that makes oil sands carbon footprint comparable to conventional drilling. in fact, the oil sands industry has reduced greenhouse gas emissions per barrel of oil produced by an average of 26% since 1990, with some
of faith in our form of government. i call it the trust deficit. it's a little bit like the fiscal deficit, the deficit of another kind but equally corrosive when people of a sudden conclude the system doesn't work and they no longer believe in participating and engaging in the system. the system is only as good as those are willing to participate and engage so i think those are the two biggest threats on the horizon. we can read and use the system with a sense of enthusiasm and direction and energy. i have no doubt about that. and it all has to do with the amount of progress we expect out of congress and whether or not we are smart enough to put this problem solving coalition together which can achieve results. then beyond that, if we can enhance the believe devotee of congress through simple things like reorienting the schedule so as joe said more time is wasting traveling to and from your district and actually sitting in washington touring the work of the people coming and if we can do simple things like no budget, no pay if you can't create a budget of spending bills by the time certai
the deficit problem. there is no question about it. but i think when they look at this bill and understand what we are really facing, i do not believe that we will have a problem there. >> [inaudible question] [talking over each other] >> it is different great obviously, we have two different versions. the house has this attrition of the workforce that has been the component and we had a combination for every new positions, we had one and then two, and we can bind both so we are on the same page. the house proposal on the attrition and we have also added congressional papers on it as well for the civilian workforce. >> [inaudible question] >> i would certainly defer to others here and the chairman. there is a real urgency here. one of the reasons that the president and his administration during his campaign, they didn't actually want the law that requires you to notify workers that they may be laid off, essentially the department of labor says the defense employers didn't have to comply with that law, it's because they knew that once they understood the real implications of sequestration,
in mind you are objective is to get the deficit below 20% by 2015. we are on track for that. we need to pay overtime allowances for agency workers and so on on new year's. the congress and the u.s. government operate differently than government here. the strategy with enough time to achieve that. there is a constant explanation to people as to how you intend to get the. we need european support. in that sense, the united states is such a huge country. with such potential. i believe that i think the united states also needs to look at the global positioning because of the impact on the world economy. >> thank you very much. i'm sorry that we are going to have to draw this to a close. i was hoping that the irish prime minister with a a message saying that if you could only get your act together and cure these problems, it would be so much better for europe and the world. but you are way too much of a diplomat for that. [laughter] >> thank you very much. i'm sorry we cannot take more questions. it's been a fascinating session. please join me in thanking the prime minister. [applause] [i
deficit is a big problem. think about it. and our national debt -- [applause] sixteen a half trillion dollars, do you think that's not a lot of money? i'll tell you what, count one number per second which a candidate because what you get to 1000 it takes you longer to get to a second the but one number per second, do you know how long it would take you to count to 16 trillion? 507,000 years, more than half a million years to get there. we have to deal with this. here's a terrible. a family falls on hard times. a dad loses his job or gets demoted, it's part-time work. has five children. he comes to the five children and he says, we are going to have to reduce your allowance. well, they're not happy about it but he said, except for john and susan. they are exceptional. they get to keep their allowance. we may give them more. how do you think that is going to go down? not too well. same thing happens, enough said. what about our taxation system? so complex, there is no one who can possibly comply with every -- if i wanted to teach you or you, i could get you on the tax issue. that doesn'
'm not politically correct. i'm sorry. but, you know, our -- the deficit is a big problem. think about it. [applause] our national debt $16.5 trillion, you think that's not a lot of money? i'll tell you what, count one number per second. you can't even do. once you get to $1,000 it takes you locker than a second. one number per second. do you know how long it would take to $16 trillion. 507 million years to get there. here is the parable, a family follows -- falls on hard time. dad loses the job or gets demoted and has five children. he comes to the five children and says we have to reduce your allowance. they're not happy about it. but he said, except for john and susan. they're special. they goat keep their allowance. we may give them more. how do you think that's going to go down? not too well. the same thing happens. enough said. what about our taxation system? so complex there's no one who can possibly comply to every. i want to get you for you, i can get you on a tax issue. that doesn't make any sense. what we need to do is come up with something that is simple. and when i pick up my bible, yo
.s. citizens and quite the contrary. have you thought of doing something? we have a $16 trillion deficit, we have fifty-one million people on food stamps, our culture is an entitlement culture and yet we are going after a thirteen million people with an immigration problem. eyewall for vetting them. what about reverse discrimination? we are going to demand exceptionalism we should have it towards the immigrants when they come here legally or illegally and we shall so go back to americans who are u.s. citizens. >> are you talking about expelling americans? >> i'm for the notion citizenship. [talking over each other] >> i may be extreme but here's my point. how many of you -- [talking over each other] >> how many of you have traveled to historic countries? you come back to america you have a different perspective about exceptionalism. how about reverse immigration? >> i did not support the deportation of american citizens. i would say this. if that were to be a policy, you would save hundreds of billions of dollars in the welfare state because individual immigrant, likely to use welfare especi
decade we've seen an enormous increase in the u.s. trade deficits with the rest of the world, especially with countries like china. and today i happened to release a report which looks at the effect of currency manipulation, which is perhaps the single most important factor which explains the growth of the trade deficit. i've shown that in limiting that trade deficit -- sorry, eliminating currency manipulation could reduce that trade deficit by roughly $190 billion to $400 billion and create between 2.2 million and 4.7 million jobs. doing that would increase manufacturing employment by up to 1 million jobs. that's a big down payment on the hole we've created in manufacturing employment. soy think one of the things we need to do is create demand for more manufacturing products. that's what we did many the 1990s but didn't do in the last decade. if the demand was, there it went to foreign sources. we need to shift that to domestically produced goods and that will result in the hiring of domestic workers. we need those jobs because manufacturing jobs are among the best jobs for workers, esp
is it is getting to the root crop -- the root causes of our trust deficit, our leadership deficit, and putting concepts, practical solutions before the american people. >> no matter what your thoughts maybe, if you really want to fix things, this is the central place to get it done. >> we have problem solvers in congress who want to wear the no labels badge. >> that is the first step to take. >> if we do not come together, we will be the first generation to turn over this country in worse shape than we received it. >> my friends are immigrants. they came to america with the fundamental hope of what this government stands for. >> people across the country want america to be the greatest nation on earth. >> the country they came from had a civil war going on. it did not have the opportunities that america provides. >> we want to make sure that we are the hope of the world and this is the place for your dreams to come true. >> it is actually up to all of us to strengthen our civic backbone and demand something different. a vision of how to get it done. no labels can help do that. >> we are changi
Search Results 0 to 29 of about 30 (some duplicates have been removed)